"Clinton’s claim that 'nobody understood what had happened' seems dubious." (NV caucus)

[ProSense]

(Update: David Nickol points out someone who reports that the casino sites provide one delegate for every five caucus-goers, whereas other sites allow for one delegate for every fifty. If true, that is fishy, although parties are allowed to set up their own process, and this appears to be what the NV Democrats agreed on. Caucuses simply can’t conform to “one man, one vote.”) Clinton’s claim that “nobody understood what had happened” seems dubious. These nobodies had many months to wake up to the reality of what they had approved, and yet somehow it didn’t occur to them to look into it until the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama. Right.

link

[Debi]

1. Not only what they approved..but what they wrote

who wrote this rule? Somebody did. It didn't fall out of the sky.

"This formula is the same one used to determine delegate apportionment in the Nevada Caucuses but instead of voter registration, it is based on attendance."

"the At-Large Precinct Caucus plan meets all of the necessary requirements of the NRS, Nevada State Democratic Party rules and by-laws and follows the Caucus delegate apportionment formula determined by the state. Further the NSDP worked closely with the Nevada Attorney General's office to make sure that the appropriate rules are followed"

[aquart]

4. I assume they couldn't base it on registration.

Because these sites are not the home localities where people regularly vote and they don't HAVE the local registration lists. So unless they were going to set them up with a statewide database... they had to base it on attendance. Which DOES change the weight of the vote.

Can anyone say it's NOT a valid objection? And no, you DON'T object when it's in your favor, that would be stupid. So people didn't realize they'd been idiots till the endorsement came out. Now they know. No good deed goes unpunished.

Thus are elections decided.

[Debi]

5. So the people who wrote this rule

did it to 'cheat'? And the Attorney General's Office agreed with it? Until the 'cheating' didn't work for them anymore? So they filed a law suit? And a Federal Court said the 'cheating' was OK?

Only in Nevada I guess. :eyes:

[ProSense]

2. Ruling on Strip voting looks likely today

Ruling on Strip voting looks likely today:

Former President Clinton stepped up his criticism of at-large precincts Wednesday, arguing that votes there would be worth five times those at off-Strip sites. He repeated that neither he nor his wife’s campaign had anything to do with the lawsuit.

Three comments to the article, none favorable to the Clintons!

[Big Blue Marble]

6. It is probably best for Clinton to just move on on this one.

He really did not look very good in that video interview arguing the 5 to 4 ratio. He looked so red and
angry. When the Clintons do not get their way, he gets angry, very angry.

This assault on the casino caucuses is so transparently Clintoned-back, you would think now that they
lost, they would just fold it up.

[AtomicKitten]

3. Three of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit WROTE the plan AND are Clinton supporters.

When they thought she was going to get the Culinary Workers endorsement, the plan was aces. Now that Obama has the endorsement, they can't have it.

Jeez, if the Clintons are going to leave a trail of bread crumbs like this, they surely can't be surprised when somebody notices.